Blobfish_Industries wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

You.. have to train AI if you want it to work…

Not if it is pretrained.

Pretrained…

Yes, meaning Scratch isn't training the model; the model is already trained, that is pretrained.

Then who is training it? If it's not being trained by Scratch, then how will it know anything about Scratch?

Or will it just be a bot that knows how to code, but not on Scratch?

Or will it not know how to code?

See my post about DSL above. In the context of what it seems you and others are saying here, there's nothing we're currently doing nor have immediate plans to do any sort of training on project data. Not sure why so many folks seem convinced that we are…

Keep in mind that any publicly shared project is already getting pulled in by lots of different AI startups which is not something we can do anything about until the legality of these things gets worked out, because the current group of AI companies are deliberately taking measures to avoid detection.

CosmicStarV1 wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

codubee wrote:

Yes it is expensive. Who said we're doing that?

You.. have to train AI if you want it to work…

Not if it is pretrained.

Pretrained…

Yes, meaning Scratch isn't training the model; the model is already trained, that is pretrained.

Then who is training it? If it's not being trained by Scratch, then how will it know anything about Scratch?

Or will it just be a bot that knows how to code, but not on Scratch?

Or will it not know how to code?

wait, if its pretrained then the suggestion to opt in and out of the training is basically useless.

Wow. You guys are very efficient at creating false narratives…

codubee wrote:

CosmicStarV1 wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

codubee wrote:

Yes it is expensive. Who said we're doing that?

You.. have to train AI if you want it to work…

Not if it is pretrained.

Pretrained…

Yes, meaning Scratch isn't training the model; the model is already trained, that is pretrained.

Then who is training it? If it's not being trained by Scratch, then how will it know anything about Scratch?

Or will it just be a bot that knows how to code, but not on Scratch?

Or will it not know how to code?

wait, if its pretrained then the suggestion to opt in and out of the training is basically useless.

Wow. You guys are very efficient at creating false narratives…

Is… is a ST member really saying that…?
Oh…

Exascerbescence wrote:

Cheddargirl did not try to disprove the first reference, however, and instead directly confirmed that the moderators weren’t told about the TOS changes. Surely if this were not true then they would’ve said that, instead of agreeing and expanding the statement from some moderators to all moderators. And what reason do you have to think they were being hyperbolic?

I'm saying what Cheddargirl stated was hyperbolic and was patently false. The ToS was communicated to the moderation team months in advance. You're just believing what you want to believe now.

Exascerbescence wrote:

codubee wrote:

Magudragon wrote:

Even Scratch Team seems to be as clueless as the rest of us, and that one user from the Scratch foundation (the foundation in charge of the TOS change)

Wow. Who do you think runs the whole site and develops for it? It's been the Scratch Foundation since 2020. 6. Years. The group of people who were running Scratch from inside the MIT Media Lab, were spun out into the Scratch Foundation. You're talking as if somehow the Scratch Foundation is some background organization…

Generally the understanding in this topic has been that the Scratch Foundation is the higher ups and the Scratch Team is the people who actually run the site. It is reassuring to know that there isn’t actually any sort of real divide between them, assuming that is actually true

(removed by moderator - please keep it polite)

The topic general understanding is flat out wrong, just is. Period. What proof would convince you? Pay stubs? The fact that I'm a director in the foundation and have worked on Scratch since 2015, along side the other folks in Lifelong Kindergarten who then spun out with me into the Foundation? What? What would it take? And yes, I'm profoundly frustrated at this attitude given how much work our group has put into Scratch overall with a thimble full of resources when compared to companies with hundreds of developers and other support folks. I don't really mind when folks are snarky about glitches or slow downs or other problems that occur, but you're just flat out telling me that I might be lying about my career.

GvYoutube wrote:

uh, no it is illegal if they don't have your legal consent to use your face for traning.

Okay, this really feels like it's run off the rails. We specifically went out of our way to make sure face sensing data never leaves the browser. Ever. By the fundamental design of it. Stop making stuff up to fit your pre-conceived notions please.

codubee wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

uh, no it is illegal if they don't have your legal consent to use your face for traning.

Okay, this really feels like it's run off the rails. We specifically went out of our way to make sure face sensing data never leaves the browser. Ever. By the fundamental design of it. Stop making stuff up to fit your pre-conceived notions please.

Uh if you saw the original context I was saying if the face extension was AI.

GvYoutube wrote:

codubee wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

uh, no it is illegal if they don't have your legal consent to use your face for traning.

Okay, this really feels like it's run off the rails. We specifically went out of our way to make sure face sensing data never leaves the browser. Ever. By the fundamental design of it. Stop making stuff up to fit your pre-conceived notions please.

Uh if you saw the original context I was saying if the face extension was AI.

And I, am pointing out to, you, that even just stating this as if it were a possibility doesn't match with the reality of what is running right now. So much misinformation has been generated in this thread, that I think it's very important to understand that even just stating what you did, implies something that we deliberately designed away from the system from even being able to do.

codubee wrote:

Wow. You guys are very efficient at creating false narratives…

so is it pretrained or not?

you know, its been nice having this specific ST member responding to the thread, but I would like some other one so that we can see if they all have this opinion.

Here's a list of posts that Codebee made on here so you would understand what's happening

• This one
  
• This one
  
• This one
  
• This one
  
• This one as well
  
• This one as well
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• 11th
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This
  
• This one
  
• This one
  

These posts will probably help you understand what's going on, that way we don't get any misinformation.
And I'm not going to number them because for some reason I get alert saying it has “Unsuitable language”

bBeryllium wrote:

codubee wrote:

Wow. You guys are very efficient at creating false narratives…

so is it pretrained or not?

I think this has been asked and answered multiple times. And it's confusing to have this question given how many times I've said no to this in the last 48 hours on this thread. It implies we don't share an understanding of the basic terms. I'm not saying you are wrong in our usage of them, just that when I read that question, I don't think I'm understanding it the same way you intend it to be understood.

codubee wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

codubee wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

uh, no it is illegal if they don't have your legal consent to use your face for traning.

Okay, this really feels like it's run off the rails. We specifically went out of our way to make sure face sensing data never leaves the browser. Ever. By the fundamental design of it. Stop making stuff up to fit your pre-conceived notions please.

Uh if you saw the original context I was saying if the face extension was AI.

And I, am pointing out to, you, that even just stating this as if it were a possibility doesn't match with the reality of what is running right now. So much misinformation has been generated in this thread, that I think it's very important to understand that even just stating what you did, implies something that we deliberately designed away from the system from even being able to do.

You also do realize the misinformation is from…
kids.. right…?
About 80% of users on this website are kids. 20% are like 12+.

GvYoutube wrote:

codubee wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

codubee wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

uh, no it is illegal if they don't have your legal consent to use your face for traning.

Okay, this really feels like it's run off the rails. We specifically went out of our way to make sure face sensing data never leaves the browser. Ever. By the fundamental design of it. Stop making stuff up to fit your pre-conceived notions please.

Uh if you saw the original context I was saying if the face extension was AI.

And I, am pointing out to, you, that even just stating this as if it were a possibility doesn't match with the reality of what is running right now. So much misinformation has been generated in this thread, that I think it's very important to understand that even just stating what you did, implies something that we deliberately designed away from the system from even being able to do.

You also do realize the misinformation is from…
kids.. right…?
About 80% of users on this website are kids. 20% are like 12+.

Oh? I had no idea!

bBeryllium wrote:

you know, its been nice having this specific ST member responding to the thread, but I would like some other one so that we can see if they all have this opinion.

It's not an opinion. I, the Director of Technology for the Scratch Foundation (aka CTO of the Foundation, aka principal architect for the backend) am discussing this from my direct knowledge of, participation in the decision making, and participation in implementation of this work.

I'm not siding with anyone, but one thing to think about is: AI is really just a bunch of humans inputting into the thing and whatever it says or does is the output, with some ‘sieve’ filtering out the unreliable information. Another thing to consider is that we made computers long before AI was around, and Scratch was around in 2007. Maybe things are getting harder to manage, so that's where I don't know what to say anymore. But, are the Scratch team members really all people who should be treating the situation? Why did @mres retire (presumably)? the spam bots… is scratch going down the wrong path? Even if the bots are a problem, there are other problems too, and maybe people are overreacting about the AI. But, we have other issues, and servers got really buggy with no warning about a month ago. One thing is: we need more updates with other things though, and AI is probably the last thing you'd want to add.

codubee wrote:

bBeryllium wrote:

you know, its been nice having this specific ST member responding to the thread, but I would like some other one so that we can see if they all have this opinion.

It's not an opinion. I, the Director of Technology for the Scratch Foundation (aka CTO of the Foundation, aka principal architect for the backend) am discussing this from my direct knowledge of, participation in the decision making, and participation in implementation of this work.

a lot of this IS opinion based though

Its_a_me_a_Yoshi wrote:

codubee wrote:

bBeryllium wrote:

you know, its been nice having this specific ST member responding to the thread, but I would like some other one so that we can see if they all have this opinion.

It's not an opinion. I, the Director of Technology for the Scratch Foundation (aka CTO of the Foundation, aka principal architect for the backend) am discussing this from my direct knowledge of, participation in the decision making, and participation in implementation of this work.

a lot of this IS opinion based though

No, codubee was talking abt the whole thing that almost this entire thread is misinformation caused by us jumping into conclusions *i think*

codubee wrote:

bBeryllium wrote:

so is it pretrained or not?

I think this has been asked and answered multiple times. And it's confusing to have this question given how many times I've said no to this in the last 48 hours on this thread. It implies we don't share an understanding of the basic terms. I'm not saying you are wrong in our usage of them, just that when I read that question, I don't think I'm understanding it the same way you intend it to be understood.

I think ‘pretrained’ is being used as in Scratch using AI models that have already been trained, rather than Scratch training AI models

codubee wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

codubee wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

codubee wrote:

GvYoutube wrote:

uh, no it is illegal if they don't have your legal consent to use your face for traning.

Okay, this really feels like it's run off the rails. We specifically went out of our way to make sure face sensing data never leaves the browser. Ever. By the fundamental design of it. Stop making stuff up to fit your pre-conceived notions please.

Uh if you saw the original context I was saying if the face extension was AI.

And I, am pointing out to, you, that even just stating this as if it were a possibility doesn't match with the reality of what is running right now. So much misinformation has been generated in this thread, that I think it's very important to understand that even just stating what you did, implies something that we deliberately designed away from the system from even being able to do.

You also do realize the misinformation is from…
kids.. right…?
About 80% of users on this website are kids. 20% are like 12+.

Oh? I had no idea!

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but if not, then this proves we are slowly shifting way from this really being a kid's website. It almost fells like we've forgotten that THIS IS FOR KIDS, older people come on here too and it just doesn't feel very kid-like anymore

ChristianScratcher1 wrote:

Its_a_me_a_Yoshi wrote:

codubee wrote:

bBeryllium wrote:

you know, its been nice having this specific ST member responding to the thread, but I would like some other one so that we can see if they all have this opinion.

It's not an opinion. I, the Director of Technology for the Scratch Foundation (aka CTO of the Foundation, aka principal architect for the backend) am discussing this from my direct knowledge of, participation in the decision making, and participation in implementation of this work.

a lot of this IS opinion based though

No, codubee was talking abt the whole thing that almost this entire thread is misinformation caused by us jumping into conclusions *i think*

mm…. true, but the topic wasn't opinion based but there was opinion based stuff in there…. maybe I didn't know what I was talking about. Sorry about that.